News-Record.com

David,

As I recall Jesse Helms did the same thing that Republicans now have a problem with Democrats doing--not allowing nominees to be considered by the full Senate.

(I don't know if Senator Helms started this; it would not surprise me at all to discover that he was simply imitiating what others had done before him, simply continuing the cycle that still continues to this day.)

I actually agree that all nominees should be given a straight-up vote by the entire Senate.

But Republicans have played the same political games as Democrats.

Both should be ashamed.

And of course, neither is.

If a candidate is so bad, then a majority of the 100 Senators should be able to figure that out for themselves.

Yes, some will vote for a poor candidate simply because that individual is matched with the "right" party (their own), but we have to have some trust that our elected officials will consider the persuasion of their fellow Senators if the arguments are important or strong enough to be taken into account.

And when Democrats regain power, Republicans must be willing to trust that the conditions they want to create for their own party's nominees are the same conditions they want to exist for Democrats when they have an advantage in number.

Republicans would not want to successfully achieve what they are trying to accomplish currently and then turn around a few years from now and return conditions to the way they used to be.

That would put them at risk of being accused of hypocrisy.

And ALL politicians try their hardest to avoid that!

Hardy

OK,

I just posted a comment at David Hoggard's Blog right before I posted this one on your Blog, and I must have had David on the brain.

I meant "Doug" of course.

I apologize, Mr. Clark (I think the "D"s in common at the beginning of your first names allowed me to confuse myself, and when I went back to edit my comments, I probably assumed I did not need to check the greeting!).

It's easy to say that Democrats are just sour about this because they aren't in the majority, but it's also important to realize the erosion of minority rights that is going on in Congress. Not only is the filibuster being attacked, but the ethics committee has been changed in the House. Before half of the committee (which is half Democrats, half Republicans) could start an ethics investigation. As of January, it now takes a majority. This means that there is no way for Democrats to investigate any possible Republican ethics breaches unless they get a Republican onboard. The filibuster is the only reason we don't effectively have a single party state. It may not be what was in mind when the Constitution was written, but neither was a Congress that is compliant with the president. The Constitution clearly intends the two branches of government to check each other, instead of speaking with the single voice they do now. The Constitution also call for the president to appoint judges not just with the consent, but also with the "advice" of the Senate. I don't see the president paying any heed to advice. Don't appoint radical judges is reasonable advice. Maybe the filibuster isn't the ideal method to use, but without it half the country may as well have no representation in Congress.

Another fact to point out is that a majority of voters did not give Republicans the Senate. A majority of voters voted for Democratic candidates in the Senate, but most small states tend to vote Republican so they get more candidates elected. That's hardly a mandate for Republicans to have total unchecked control.

The filibuster hasn't been around since the Constitution was written, but has been for over 150 years. We should remember that roughly half the votes deciding roughly all the power is a pretty scary thing.

Hardy,

No need for an apology, or for calling me Mr. Clark. For some reason, I'm often called Dave or David by mistake. Memories of the Dave Clark Five? Just think Doug Clark and the Hot Nuts instead.

Yes, both political parties play tit-for-tat. That's why Republicans should be careful about negating the filibuster option.

Democrats aren't thinking ahead, either. While it's possible they could recapture a majority in the Senate, they chances that they will reach a 60-40 advantage in my lifetime seem remote. Republicans are more likely to get there first.

Andrew, I had not seen it reported that more Americans voted for Democratic Senate candidates than for Republicans. That's very surprising, given the majority of votes for Bush.

I'm comfortable keeping the filibuster in place, even given its checkered history, because I think it's important not to trample rights of minorities.

I'm much less happy when single senators, by virtue of their committee chairmanships, can prevent nominations from even coming to the floor. THAT is antidemocratic.

Naw Doug, you can't be old enough to remember the
"Hot Nuts".
Maybe you should do a whole column on this group. The results should be more civil than this one.

The almost absolute rule of committee chairmen is another cherished Senate tradition.

Doug: Yeah, I know. It's still antidemocratic. So's the filibuster, of course, but this is much worse.

Dad,
According to CNN, Democratic candidates got 50.16% of votes cast in Senate races. Not exactly a landslide, but a majority nonetheless.

Andrew,

Interesting. I guess you can thank your man Barack Obama for that. He must have won by several million votes in Illinois.